Kelly introduced this
notion when he stated that "...constructs may be used as
viewpoints for
seeing other constructs as in the hierarchical relationships of
constructs
within a system. In that sense, superordinate
constructs are versions of those constructs which are subordinate to
them."
(p.136) . Kelly provides an example of this with a 16-point scale (a
hierarchical
scale) for a superordinate construct derived from four increasingly
subordinate
dichotomous constructs.

The notion of hierarchical construing was taken up most comprehensively
by Hinkle (1965). Hinkle’s work was not published directly but was
treated extensively by Bannister and Mair (1968, pp. 78-96). This
account has formed the basis of most subsequent evaluations of this
work. It was first formally evaluated by ten Kate (1981) who raised an
important issue with respect to the notion of implication. Does imply
represent superordinate --> subordinate or
does it represent subordinate --> superordinate?
Or
to reverse the question; which is the more superordinate construct: the
predictor or predicted? In Hinkle’s procedure, the superordinate
construct is the
one predicted while in another scheme (Hays,1958), the predicting
construct
(in his terms, trait) is the more important. Caputi, Breiger and
Pattison
(1990) have also drawn attention to this contradiction. While
hierarchical
relationships are most closely associated with the techniques devised
by
Hinkle to elicit them, laddering
andimplications grids,
these
can also be detected in repertory grids as shown for example by Shaw
and
Gaines (1981) and Smithson (1987)